[cmucl-imp] compile-file return values?
Douglas Crosher
dtc-cmucl at scieneer.com
Fri Mar 25 04:50:35 CET 2011
Hi Ray,
The test file asdf/test/compile-asdf.lisp tries to catch compile errors and warnings including some style-warnings.
I propose using the c::brevity extension to suppress the efficiency notes and then check the second value returned by compile-file.
For example:
(proclaim '(optimize (speed 2) (safety 3) #-allegro (debug 3)
#+(or scl cmu) (c::brevity 2)))
However this does not work on the current cmucl because the second value returned does not include style-warnings, so unused
variable warnings etc are not caught in this test.
The ANSI-CL standard suggests that the second return value should be true for style-warnings, as well as other warnings and errors,
so the original cmucl code seems right to me.
Perhaps there was some other issue here.
Regards
Douglas Crosher
On 25/03/11 04:40, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas Crosher<dtc-cmucl at scieneer.com> writes:
>
> Douglas> While check the ASDF 2 tests it appears that CMUCL may
> Douglas> not be returning the expected value for the second return
> Douglas> value of 'compile-file. The standard appears to state
> Douglas> that the second value should be true if there are
> Douglas> style-warnings, warnings, or errors. However CMUCL
> Douglas> ignores style-warnings. This appears to be a regression,
> Douglas> as it had been: (not (null error-severity))
>
> Hi Douglas!
>
> Thanks for the note. Can you tell me which asdf2 test complains about
> this.
>
> A check of the commit logs doesn't provide any information about why
> this was changed. (It happened when adding support for package locks.)
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> cmucl-imp mailing list
> cmucl-imp at cmucl.cons.org
> http://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp
>
More information about the cmucl-imp
mailing list